Personhood Amendment Ruled Unconstitutional

By GOPUSA StaffMay 2, 2012 6:14 am

Text Size:AAA

Pro-life supporters were dealt a setback as the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that a ballot initiative regarding the "personhood" status of the unborn was unconstitutional. The court said the proposed ballot measure conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade.

he highest court in Oklahoma ruled that the personhood amendment backers hoped to get on the state ballot is unconstitutional. The court blocked it, saying it was "void on its face" because the nation's highest court has already ruled on the issue of abortion.

Personhood Oklahoma, a state affiliate of Personhood USA, filed the ballot initiative on March 1 hoping to be able to have until the end of May to gather the 15,000 required signatures needed to get the measure, that would purportedly ban abortions, on the state ballot.

While some pro-life advocates support Personhood Amendments, others recognize the only way to end abortions is to first change the makeup of the Supreme Court to pave the way for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. They have said courts, like the Oklahoma Supreme Court, will overturn Personhood Amendments as conflicting with Roe until the high court has a better composition of judges -- which can only be obtained by defeating pro-abortion President Barack Obama this November.

4 Comments

Comment by FlaJim May 2, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

This is the stupidest decision from a court in a long time. In the Roe v Wade decision, it was explicitly stated that if life was defined from the moment of conception in any State, its ruling would not apply. This decision needs to be appealed or ignored.

Reason once again loses to emotion, while millions of innocent’s continue to perish. God’s patience is running out on this Nation. Tomorrow is our National Day Of Prayer and this travesty will be at the top of my prayer list.

Woh! Full brakes! I didn’t have to read past the first paragraph to see the glaring hole in this one. Personhood amendment deemed unconstitutional because it conflicts, not with a pre-existing amendment, but with a prior CASE? Okay, so that case apparently established a constitutional “right,” but it wouldn’t be the first time such rulings had been reversed.

The Constitution has nothing to do with Roe Vs Wade. It is about as relevant as the Dred Scott ruling and the Plessy Vs Ferguson of separate but equal stupidity. The notion that the SCOTUS is infallible reminds me of the Catholic church doctrine of the 16th century. Why can’t we say that abortion means killing of a human life. The word abortion itslef is used to numb our sense of fairness when it takes place deliberately not unintentionally due to quirkiness of nature in some exteremely low cases.
Glen Beck highlighted today in his radio show Dr. Phil’s TV show discussing yuthenizing or more accurately killing of severley handicapped individuals. That is what the Nazis did. If you think it can not happen in the US of A, you are delusional. The progressives are all for it in the name of compassion.